Topic: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: CatatonicPosted 2005-01-04 02:01:47 and read 5841 times.

From what I have seen BA and BMI do well from being in an alliance with oneworld and star alliance especially on internal feeder flights. Why isn't Virgin in any sort of alliance? Maybe they could look at skyteam? Surely being in an alliance is more beneficial than not?

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Star_memberPosted 2005-01-04 02:30:10 and read 5804 times.

the best alliance for VS is star. they have a complementary network with BD and already code share. DJ in australia will need to increase their service levels soon to stop the loss of market share to QF and Jetstar, so they would be useful for star also.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: QuestAirPosted 2005-01-04 02:45:12 and read 5780 times.

I agree; Star is the best fit for VS. As Star_member pointed out, they could hook up with BD to take on BA. Don't they have a solid relationship with SQ as well?

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: AerofanPosted 2005-01-04 04:18:04 and read 5727 times.

We've been over this several times. VS is not interested in an alliance least of all within star. That would be the worse fit of any

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: PadcrasherPosted 2005-01-04 04:29:04 and read 5705 times.

Well why isn't one of the largest airlines in Europe not interested in an alliance?

It's something they don't need. They're protected by huge barriers to competition by operating in and out of LHR. They can survive on London O&D alone. Their only competition is BA for premium revenue, hence you have haircuts and massages up front.

Bad for the UK, as more air commerce will flows through FRA and CDG.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: BH346Posted 2005-01-04 04:33:49 and read 5695 times.

I remember reading an article a few years ago stating that Richard Branson viewed alliances as being detrimental but they'll probably end up accepting them. They already have a deal going on with Continental and Singapore I believe.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: JaseplPosted 2005-01-04 04:42:55 and read 5676 times.

Well why isn't one of the largest airlines in Europe not interested in an alliance?

Largest? Hardly... VS are tiny in comparison!

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Cactus739Posted 2005-01-04 04:54:32 and read 5666 times.

They have code-share alliances with Signapore, Malaysia, bmi, Continental and America West.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: ZKSUJPosted 2005-01-04 09:16:34 and read 5552 times.

VS basically have their own mini alliance with Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Express, Virgin America, Pacific Blue and Virgin Blue all being under one huge umbrella. Not to metion that they code share with several carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Aa777jrPosted 2005-01-04 09:27:58 and read 5533 times.

VS got to the top alone, they wanna stay that way and Sir Richard is just fine going it alone.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: EssjayPosted 2005-01-04 20:08:54 and read 5346 times.

Star seems to be the way to go; VS now also has an alliance with SA (I wonder if VS has dropped Nationwide?), who will be joining Star in the near future. SA also codeshares with BD so Star Alliance would be in quite a strong position as far as SA-UK routes go if VS had to join too.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Kkfla737Posted 2005-01-04 20:30:13 and read 5310 times.

BD and VS will now be competeting for the first time (I believe) on the LHR-BOM route. How will this affect the relationship which has worked well for both airlines?

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: ConcordeBoyPosted 2005-01-04 20:35:31 and read 5304 times.

VS basically have their own mini alliance with Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Express, Virgin America, Pacific Blue and Virgin Blue all being under one huge umbrella.

...perhaps I missed some'n, but there appear to be two airlines in the above statement which don't exist (and may never).

"Well why isn't one of the largest airlines in Europe not interested in an alliance?"

Well to be fair its not one the largest airlines - BA, AF/KLM, SK, LH, IB are bigger, I would probably think Alitalia, Ryanair maybe easyjet aswell.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Sabena332Posted 2005-01-04 20:42:03 and read 5276 times.

I would already be pleased when they would have an airline partner which is operating feeder flights to/from LHR. It is incredible expensive to book a long-haul flight on VS combined with a feeder flight on another airline here from Germany.

Patrick

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Byrdluvs747Posted 2005-01-04 20:42:17 and read 5274 times.

Seing how SQ has a 49% stake in VS, I don't see VS joining any alliance outside of Star. That's if VS wants to join in the first place.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: VS045Posted 2005-01-04 21:01:44 and read 5241 times.

VS have no neeed to join an alliance, because they do NOT want to fly everywhere, unlike BA, UA, LH etc. VS only flies to top leisure and business destinations and relies almost soley on O&D out of LHR and especially out of LGW.

Cheers,
VS045

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: AntaresPosted 2005-01-04 21:10:24 and read 5228 times.

The fact that VS ins't in any alliance while its Singapore Airlines part owner is telling.

Quite frankly, alliances mean bugger all at the end of the day. Lots of talking, lots of executive down time, lots of change resistant members fighting with pro-change members, and seriously, Jo Public knows how to change flights at an airport, and has worked out that seamless baggage transfers can mean lost baggage or extra security checks anyhow.

No one can prove any benefit at all from alliances in the strict economic sense, since it is impossible to 'model' what would have happened if they had not come into effect.

The merits of alliances have been further burned by the likes of Qantas,SAS, Air NZ and BA doing thriving unofficial business with the members of allinaces other than the one they belong to anyhow.

None of the things we were promised by the alliance kiddies came true. No joint orders for identical jets, no equality of flight standards (thank goodness!), no same food, same unifgorms (gotta save heaps of money having only one type of uniform world wide...really...) no single shade of white, no identical business class cabins and no consistent recognition of FFP status.

It really is the biggest dog's breakfast of undergraduate theory meeting the cruel real world you could wish for, and is an embarrassment to many managements .

You should sit through some of the investor analyst meetings I've been to, the ones where the media are forbidden, and you would know that alliances are like most marriages, on the rocks....

Look at the VS route map- most destinations are ex British colonies or destinations that have other historical ties to the UK. Therefore, as stated above, most traffic is ex UK originating or destined.

Live in continental Europe and want to fly VS? Buy a cheap low-cost ticket to LHR/LGW then fly VS- they aren't too nterested in transit traffic.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: ConcordeBoyPosted 2005-01-04 23:11:05 and read 5133 times.

None of the things we were promised by the alliance kiddies came true.

...nor is this statement remotely accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

No joint orders for identical jets

...yet

no equality of flight standards (thank goodness!)

As your followup comment clearly indicates, this statement is more subjective than factual.

While some airlines have made it exceedingly clear that they plan to maintain their individual identities both inside and out of the cabin-- others have indeed attempted to emulate their partner(s) flight/cabin/service standards.

no same food, same unifgorms, no single shade of white, no identical business class cabins

Refresh me again as to when/where the "alliance kiddies" promised any of this...?

and no consistent recognition of FFP status.

This is the sore spot in all alliances, particularly OneHeathroWorld.... that I will most certainly agree with you upon.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: UA744KSFOPosted 2005-01-04 23:14:23 and read 5129 times.

"Don't they have a solid relationship with SQ as well?"

SQ owns 49% of VS.

I doubt VS would join an alliance though. Like EK, they are the type of carrier that would rather just have different codeshare partners than be tied to an alliance.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: AeroWestyPosted 2005-01-04 23:35:27 and read 5102 times.

no same food, same unifgorms, no single shade of white, no identical business class cabins

Refresh me again as to when/where the "alliance kiddies" promised any of this...?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't one of the longest-standing alliances been working for a number of years to align quite a bit of their product? Or are we talking a more global-type of an alliance such as Star or OneWorld in this thread?

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: AntaresPosted 2005-01-05 00:41:06 and read 5048 times.

I endured the original investor briefings by UA and BA and a few others on what the alliances would do, back in 1998, so I have no doubts about saying they haven't delivered. I even sat through Colin Marshall saying he could live with BA losing the BA identity if it controlled Oneworld, sorry oneworld, as a true global brand like Cunard.

Marshall was very good at a number of things, but the alliance thing 'escaped' as different things happened, not the least, the repeated failure of his brave efforts to merge AA/BA.

To all intents and purposes alliances are joining the ranks of the walking dead.

Joint service agreements and tightly constructed code shares are thriving. For example, you could argue that the very successful UA/LH code share out of Chicago would be little affected by either being in the same or different alliances.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that without alliances some carriers would have been forced out of business. Equally I suggest that it is not a good thing to modify competition to save the weak. the weak should die.

It is astonisingly, even to a cynic like myself, that after all this time neither alliance has achieved stable 100% integration of back office and reservations systems.

I doubt that I'm not alone in experiencing the check in apology for not being able to issue the boarding pass needed for the connecting carrier, not having my favourite seat booking honoured, even when it appears on my itinerary, and being treated like an alien entity on producing my Qantas Club card at a lounge where they think it must be a forgery because it spells Quantas without the 'u.'

To be fair to alliances, especially Star, they do offer some astonishingly good combo deals from time to time, but they are yield limited means of disposing of inventory not expected to sell by normal means.

I can think of two corporate travel management companies in Australia that can beat these deals any day on nearly any carrier you can name.

Alliances could roar back into frame in a world where there is more approval for flags of convenience carriers with AOCs issued by dubious authorities, and the professional standards of training, checking and general maintenance have been diminished to some pitiful lowest common denominator. Likewise if we had free trade agreements that abolished competition laws and consumer protection legislation.

I don't think too many of us would think this would be a good thing.

In the meantime most of the market will be motivated by price and availability, not meaningless oneworld or Star logo stuff.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: PadcrasherPosted 2005-01-05 00:50:11 and read 5040 times.

I think being over in Asia alliance have a less important role. But Trans atlantic is different.

CO/NW/DL control 35 % of all US domestic travel and those airlines customer base base is flying over CDG/AMS. There is a huge amount of business that is funneled to those hubs. Nobody in those areas of the US dominated by Skyteam even think London for connecting. And before all these alliances came about London was the number 1 choice.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Tango-BravoPosted 2005-01-05 02:24:43 and read 4979 times.

Surely being in an alliance is more beneficial than not?

Not when the true costs of alliances are calculated. Which is probably why Sir Richard has opted out of an alliance by not opting into one in the first place. He, like Herb Kelleher, have refused to be sucked into the "everybody's doing it" syndrome on the issue of alliances. Sir Richard and Herb are also uniquely astute in their business acumen, at least in the airline industry, and undoutedly have seen through all of the alliance smoke-and-mirrors and discovered the ugly reality that alliances are all about higher costs with no corresponding increase in revenues -- before they ever gave serious thought to being sucked into an alliance

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: AntaresPosted 2005-01-05 05:49:41 and read 4915 times.

Tango-Bravo,

That is precisely what the Australian traffic statistics prove. If you add up the market share in the year to July 1998 on the Deartment of transport website (go to Avstats) for all of the carriers now in alliances you will get a figure which is within close reach of the same figure in the most recent year-to-date stats after nearly six full years of Star and oneworld membership in this market.

In terms of market share they achieved nothing. In terms of profits and losses I'd argue these reflect factors which had little if anything to do with being in an alliance.

Antares

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: Ual777contrailPosted 2005-01-05 18:56:34 and read 4799 times.

Topic: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?

What do they bring to the table? LHR long haul. so what, UA,BA,BM,LH,AA,AF,EI,CX they all do what vs does. I think they missed the boat, they should have jumped on it quick, now Brandson probably thinks he is being clever by waiting it out. I think he missed the boat.IMO

UAL 777 CONTRAIL

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: VS11Posted 2005-01-06 05:36:59 and read 4657 times.

1. Keeping brand recognition and awareness.

2. The existence of alliances is against what Virgin stands for (in a business sense): competition, innovation, more choice for customers, etc.

3. Virgin Atlantic has in fact a very well developed network of partnerships with many other national-carrier airlines (beyond codeshares). These other national carriers compete with BA in the London-to-respective country markets so they are more than willing to partner with VS on routes via London where otherwise they would lose trafic to BA. e.g. MEA, BulgariaAir, EK, GulfAir, and others. In fact, VS offers very good rates to its partner airlines and you can get very attractive fares.

VS11

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: DeltaflyertooPosted 2005-01-06 08:06:36 and read 4622 times.

Technically they are in one with Delta and Continental. The fact that I can book a flight through Continental or Delta.com to Heathrow on VS, choose my own seat and accrue miles on either ONe Pass or Sky Miles is huge. I can also use SKy MIles and ONe Pass for a free ticket on VS and upgrades. Doesn't get more cozy than that.

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: 7LBAC111Posted 2005-01-06 11:43:02 and read 4566 times.

As I have said many times, VS are building their own mini alliance! They have Virgin Atlantic, Virgin AMerica (eventually) Virgin Nigeria, Virgin Express, Virgin Blue and god knows why, Virgin Galactic!

Perhaps the only broken link in there is TV. As they operate from Brussels and are rumoured to have been sold to SN, they don't really fit in my theory. But as the many rumours have been saying, a VS buyout of BD isn't that unlikely IMHO.

7LBAC111

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: SjoerdPosted 2005-01-06 13:58:29 and read 4503 times.

Virgin Express is a low cost carrier and doesn't even fly to the UK ! It has now merged with SN and all SN flights to LHR are operated by BA !

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: 7LBAC111Posted 2005-01-06 14:02:12 and read 4498 times.

Sjoerd - read the post again. I already discounted TV.

And for the record, all the VS companies EXCEPT Atlantic are low costs, but this doesn't mean they cannot offer O&D traffic !

Topic: RE: Why Is VS Not In An Alliance?Username: MonkeyboiPosted 2005-01-06 14:56:16 and read 4469 times.

I always find it amusing in these topics how people always mention BA as Virgin's main competitor.

I disagree. Having worked for both, I believe that the 'dis-like' between the airlines is nothing but media hype (which in a lot of ways helps both airlines). Behind the scenes there are many ways they work together. BA even announced (very quietly) recently that they would 'babysit' a pair of slots that VS recently purchased but does not have the equipment to utilise them. Neither airline will comment on the deal.

Both BA and Virgin see their main competitors as (trans-atlantic) the heavily government subsidised American carriers, and eastwards the rapidly expanding middle eastern carriers such as Emirates, Qatar and Etihad. BA in particular is much more concerned with the expansion on Emirates and Etihad than it is for any VS expansion. EK already has taken a huge amount of BA's traffic on routes to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh routes.

On the subject of a bd/vs alliance they only time I can see that is if VS buys BD out. They had what was once a very close relationship together. This has taken a battering recently and BD is FURIOUS that VS continues to oppose it's entry into the trans-atlantic arena from LHR.

And in terms of VS co-operating with Virgin Express, Virgin Blue etc. Remember, these are low cost carriers. They don't interline with full service carriers (with a few exceptions). For example, Virgin Express flies LHR-BRU. However VS code-shares and feeds BD on the LHR-BRU route.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.